Why New Chinese AIRCRAFT CARRIER is A Complete DISASTER

China’s newest aircraft carrier, the Fujian, is often hyped as a rival to the USS Gerald R. Ford. But despite its massive size and advanced design, the reality is far less impressive. Critical flaws undermine its potential, making it a disappointment compared to its U.S. counterpart. In this video, we’ll break down the key reasons why the Fujian falls short, despite China’s ambitions to challenge American naval supremacy. From design issues to operational shortcomings, let’s explore why the Fujian might be one of China’s biggest naval disaster yet!

#militarystrategy #militarydevelopments #militaryanalysis
#themilitaryshow

[seanbrazell]

If there was ever a point where a US aircraft carrier actually had to use its air defense systems it would mean we'd already have lost dozens of ships and thousands of sailors from the battlegroup whose actually responsible for the defense of an aircraft carrier. China is just building the stuff we built because we built it. The US Navy was built over time to serve very specific and well thought out purposes. We didn't build stealth fighters and bombers because the older cool kid did and we wanna look like him! We built them because they served a deeply analyzed, experience dictated tactical and strategic need in the wars we had, are, and likely would be fighting in the future. We didn't decide to become a superpower one day because we wanted to be like another nation or because we wanted to dominate the world. China - a nation built on the same Soviet ideological and technological foundations as Putin's Russia, is by all accounts even more corrupt than it's northern vassal state is. Imagine then what would happened in Russia if it had dumped the same trillions of dollars into its military machine. The second China begins it's first war will be the moment it has it's very own millitary corruption induced come to Jesus moment, just like Putin did (and seems to continue having) when he began his idiot invasion of Ukraine. On GIGA steroids and meth.

[mozzie]

They skipped the steam catapults and went straight to the electromagnetic catapults, they must of felt confident of the amount of information they were able to -steal- create.

The problem with that is they never went through the learning phase, they don't know how to actually make it work, and they haven't been able to get a steady power supply to the catapults for reliable use. That's what happens when you try to copy someone else's homework without knowing how to get the answers.

Experience is absolute, the US has the most experience in operating carriers in peace and war time while China can only play war games. The posturing that Chinese forces are doing has no foundation, it's just there to intimidate.

[almac]

"More advanced than ships developed by France and the UK"? Someone needs a rebrief.

[exrepair]

"You’re absolutely right; I hope you can also convince the U.S. military of what you’re saying."

[Liberty_or_Ded]

There's something else you didn't touch on regarding the Fujian's EMALS: The carrier is diesel-powered. The amount of maximum power that diesel can put out is VASTLY inferior to the amount of power a dual nuclear reactor can put out. EMALS requires a tremendous amount of electricity to charge its capacitors, and it has to maintain a steady, non-fluctuating energy current or else it can cause the rails to overcharge and burn out, or undercharge and fail to achieve launch velocity for the jet. Diesel generators are stable enough for powering your house, but they're nowhere near stable enough for sensitive materials like electromagnetic rail launchers. The ship will also have to cut its propulsion in order to power the EMALS, further reducing launch velocity for the aircraft and also making the aircraft carrier a sitting duck that cannot evade any incoming ordnance... a perfect target for a submarine's torpedo, for example.

[nosajimiki]

The second they went with diesel power, they were choosing to come in 3 generations behind other modern carriers. Not only does this limit operational ranges, but power output. The big difference between the Ford and the Nimitz is that the Ford doubled the power output purely to power all the insane amount of electronic systems that were installed or predicted to be installed on the Ford. That means stronger radars, stronger jamming capabilities, anti-missile lasers, directed EMP drone swarm defenses... there is no way the Fujian will be able to come even close to keeping up with the EM warfare and defensive capabilities of a Ford as these technologies continue to mature.

[laurenztillger]

the fact that the entire defence ministary approved a ship that can only store like 2 days worth of fuel and then comeback to port

[gothamgoon]

Sounds like a school kid saying 'mines bigger and better than yours'. I won't debate because it's a waste of time but I will say this. Never underestimate your enemy.

[agustingonzalez]

Never underestimate your enemy. Never make fun of your enemy until you have beaten him. Never ridicule your enemy until you know all his secrets.

[FromThentoNow]

Catapults do not add ‘lift’ to an aircraft, they add SPEED! The speed provides lift!

[steveo]

Do you have the flags swapped on the pictures at 1:32? You have the US flag over the picture of Shanghai. The Chinese flag looks like it is over a picture of Philadelphia. Did the AI put you up to this?

[realalbertan]

I'll take the De Gaulle or QE class over this carrier given what we know their air wings can do

[JUNKERS]

Do you know why all the new Chinese Naval ships are all required to have glass bottoms ? So they can easily see the old Chinese Navy's ships.

[Antinonsens]

I'd like to believe you, but it's a pity that the US military doesn't.

[zenon]

As long as black smoke rises from the carrrier's chimneys, there is no danger.

[chrismiller]

Another mistake on the Fujian is the placement of the forward catapults. The catapults on the Ford are angled so their start point is away from the landing area so both catapults can be utilized while landing operations are going on. Those on the Fujian are aligned with the ship centerline so the catapult closest to the landing area blocks a portion of the landing area so if a plane had to fly around again there is a danger of collision. Essentially the Fujian can only use one catapult during simultaneous launch and recovery of aircraft.
Fujian's operational range, if they were able to resupply at sea, could be curtailed by targeting of supply ships via air, surface and submarine patrols. the US could in, if necessary, have 3 carrier groups with 2 running operations while the third moves back to resupply out of range of most of China's forces.

[poodlescone]

Every single one of China's aircraft carriers are nothing more than test beds to learn how to build and operate their own aircraft carrier. This is why the Fujian has a flat deck as opposed to the STOBAR and they still are struggling with the EM catapult. None of these ships are meant to engage in actual combat.

[niptsan]

If this is the case, why USA so fear of China . I confused.

[Hunter-zphd]

The Chinese don’t really need all that many carriers. They would be smarter to keep developing quiet diesel subs. These would be far more dangerous than building a few carriers. China is not a true Blue Water country. They are more concerned about regional issues, whereas the US Navy is a true Blue Water force. China having a ton of diesel subs is very dangerous. Also, with Chinese DF-21, US aircraft carriers would have a hard time getting close enough for the air wings to be useful without exposing themselves.
US aircraft carriers haven’t actually been attacked in decades. Who really knows how they would fare in a conflict in the South China Sea.

[minhduong]

I like how this video does not count the Russia's Admiral Kuznetsov as an active aircraft carrier. Even if it were active, I would classify it as a missile carrier that has planes rather than an aircraft carrier.